From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 3, 2015
# 2015-029-007 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 3, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-029-007 Claim No. 123544

03-03-2015

MURRAY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CHERYSE MURRAY, pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Rebecca Kramer, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Although claimant's conviction on disciplinary charges was reversed for failure to call a witness, the trial record demonstrated overwhelming evidence in favor of her guilt and she thus did not sustain her burden of proof in the claim seeking damages for wrongful confinement and the claim was dismissed.

Case information


UID:

2015-029-007

Claimant(s):

CHERYSE MURRAY

Claimant short name:

MURRAY

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

123544

Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

STEPHEN J. MIGNANO

Claimant's attorney:

CHERYSE MURRAY, pro se

Defendant's attorney:

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Rebecca Kramer, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

March 3, 2015

City:

White Plains

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant, an inmate at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, seeks damages for 60 days of alleged wrongful excessive confinement pursuant to her conviction at a Tier III hearing of assaulting another inmate. She testified, and the documentary evidence shows, that she served 30 days in special housing and 30 days confinement to her cell and that the conviction was reversed by the commissioner because the hearing officer did not call the "reporting employee" to testify (Ex. 14).

Claimant was convicted of assaulting inmate Skeldon, based on Skeldon's account (Exs. A, E) and the corroborating statements of three other witnesses (Exs. G, H, I). Those confidential accounts were deemed credible by the investigating officer who brought the charges based on his investigation (Ex. J).

Although claimant testified on direct that her witnesses were not allowed to testify, she acknowledged on cross that the five witnesses she requested in writing did in fact testify at the hearing and she maintained that she requested two additional witnesses on a "sticky note" attached to the hearing form (Ex. N).

Inmate Elizabeth Foote - one of the two witnesses claimant allegedly requested on the sticky note - testified that she was part of a group of about 50 inmates exiting the vocational building at the time and that Skeldon and inmate Blake - who claimant testified had lied at the hearing - were in front of her and claimant was behind her, the import of the testimony being that claimant could not have assaulted Skeldon.

This court has previously written, as have others, that when an inmate's disciplinary conviction is reversed for the failure to call a witness requested by the inmate, such facts allow for the presumption that had the witness testified at the original hearing, it is more likely than not that the inmate would not have been convicted, such presumption providing the requisite element of causation between the improper conduct of the hearing and the conviction (Gaiter v State of New York, UID No. 2009-029-060 [Mignano, J., Oct. 5, 2009]); DuBois v State of New York (25 Misc 3d 1137). However, this court has also noted that each case stands on its own facts (Steele v State of New York, UID No. 2013-029-026 [Mignano, J., July 17, 2013]) and a successful claimant must show not only that his or her rights were violated but that there was a causal connection between that violation and the conviction.

The obvious method for defendant to combat the application of any presumption in claimant's favor based on the exclusion of a witness or evidence is to show that the inclusion of that evidence or testimony would not likely have made a dispositive difference in the hearing result. Here, although the conviction was reversed for what looks like a technicality - failing to call the complaining officer (who did not witness the alleged event) - the testimony of the confidential inmate witness informants which formed the basis of the conviction, remained unimpaired and somewhat overwhelming. The most likely conclusion that can be drawn is that if the officer had been called, the hearing result would have been the same. Thus the failure to call Foote is not a dispositive error.

Accordingly, the court finds that claimant has failed to establish a cause of action for damages for wrongful excessive confinement and that her rights have been properly vindicated by the reversal of the conviction. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal.

March 3, 2015

White Plains, New York

STEPHEN J. MIGNANO

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Murray v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 3, 2015
# 2015-029-007 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Murray v. State

Case Details

Full title:MURRAY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Mar 3, 2015

Citations

# 2015-029-007 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 3, 2015)